The Telangana High Court NDPS Act compliance issue once again came under judicial scrutiny after the Court acquitted an accused in a ganja cultivation case, holding that oral assertions by police officers cannot replace mandatory statutory safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act.

The Court categorically ruled that strict adherence to procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is not optional but compulsory.

Any deviation creates serious doubt over the legality of recovery and investigation. The Bench reiterated that compliance must be demonstrable through documentary evidence and not mere verbal claims during trial.

Oral Compliance Not a Substitute for Statutory Mandate

While examining the appeal, the Court relied upon settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark NDPS Act decisions, including Karnail Singh, Baldev Singh, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadej,a and Jagraj Singh.

The Telangana High Court observed that when recovery itself is doubtful due to procedural violations, the conviction cannot be sustained.

In the present case, the prosecution claimed that around 3500 ganja plants were uprooted and destroyed in the presence of villagers under police supervision.

However, the Telangana High Court NDPS Act compliance analysis revealed glaring omissions.

No independent villagers were examined as witnesses, and no photographic or videographic evidence was produced before the Court to substantiate the alleged seizure and destruction.

Violation of Section 42(2) NDPS Act Proved Fatal

A crucial lapse noted by the Court was the failure of the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.

Though the officer claimed that information about illegal cultivation was received and communicated to his superior, no General Diary entry was produced in evidence.

The Court noted that the Investigating Officer admitted receiving information at around 8 a.m. and claimed it was entered into the Station Diary.

However, the absence of the General Diary entry clearly indicated that no written intimation was sent to the superior officer within the stipulated 72 hours. This lapse, being mandatory in nature, struck at the root of the prosecution’s case.

Confessional Statement Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction

Another critical aspect highlighted was that the conviction rested almost entirely on the alleged confessional statement of the accused.

The Court reiterated that confessions made before officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

Except for 100 grams of ganja sent for forensic analysis, no credible material was placed on record to establish large-scale cultivation. The absence of corroborative evidence rendered the prosecution’s version unreliable.

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted

After considering the cumulative effect of procedural violations, lack of independent evidence and inadmissibility of confession, the Telangana High Court allowed the criminal appeal.

The conviction and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act were set aside.

The Court held that violation of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act vitiates the entire prosecution, reaffirming once again that Telangana High Court NDPS Act compliance is a non-negotiable requirement for sustaining a conviction.

Case Details

• Case Title: Jadhav Gopal vs State of Andhra Pradesh
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2013
• Court: Telangana High Court
• Bench: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao
• For the Appellant: G. Aravind appearing for Vivek Jain
• For the State: M. Vivekananda Reddy

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…